Will Dove  00:00 Since the start of the COVID narrative, there has been a steady campaign by the colleges and physicians and surgeons across our country to persecute any doctor or other medical professional who refused to follow their COVID directives, directives, which were not laws. They were, in fact nothing other than guidelines, guidelines, which no doctor is required to follow, if they believed that following those directives was not in the best interest of their patients. Dr. Roshni Killian, who has been on my show several times, was one of the first doctors in our country to walk away from her job in protest of guidelines, which she saw as harmful to patients. Subsequently, she went to work at an online clinic, where she provided vaccine exemptions and prescriptions for ivermectin to her patients. The college suspended her license, despite the fact that not a single patient had complained about her treatment. In addition, the college demanded that Dr. Killian hand over her patient records once again, despite the fact that not a single patient had complained. And in contravention of laws, protecting patient privacy. Dr. Killian refused. Dr. Killian is being represented pro bono by Paul slansky. 31 of Dr. Killians patients are being represented in their case to protect their medical privacy by Amina Shah, Rosie once again, pro bono. In this interview with Dr. Killian, and lawyers, Paul slansky and Amina Shirazi, we will reveal the agenda by the colleges, not only to censor and suspend any physician who does not follow their directives, but also their relentless campaign to erase your right to medical privacy. Janae Paul, Amina, welcome to the show. Thank you Well, now, some of our viewers will know Roche know who you are, because I've done a number of interviews with you in the past. In fact, to this day, the very first interview I did with you still holds the record for most views, it's now exceeded a quarter million views and very first interview that we did. And that was on rumble. By the way. It's amazing to get a quarter million views on rumble. However, our viewers will not know who Paul and Elena are. So we're going to start with the people who may not know who you are lotion, a because this cool case centers around you. So please give a brief introduction of yourself who you are, how you got involved in this, and then we'll move on to our and Paul.   Rochagné Kilian  02:43 Thank you. Well, it's a pleasure being here with you again. So yes. All I got involved with this is that I was on the frontline during the whole last few years that we've had to live through I was an ER physician, up until August 23 of 2001. When I resigned in a publicly recorded townhall meeting that as part of the interview that we did previously, after moving away from my basically my position as an ER physician, I moved back into family, family physician work where I assess people during the COVID period for Automaten comprehensive COVID care basically, which included either exemptions automate and taking care of their health in that process, the patient of mine, how to read the exemption it was handed in in the employer and the employer handed it into the college, which started an investigation against me, the first investigation that I've ever had in 17 plus years at the physician. And basically that is what got us to the point where we are here today in the process, land license was suspended temporarily suspended, going on two years now. And it got us into the court system. And we are still fighting to get my license back and basically fighting for patients, right to privacy. That's what it comes down to at the end of the day.   Will Dove  04:03 All right. Thank you. Um, would you please introduce yourself and how you got involved in this?   Amina Sherazee  04:09 Sure. So I am a lawyer in Ontario. And I got involved because a number of Dr. Killian patient contacted me to protect the privacy of the information that's in their medical records. And so part of the investigation against Dr. Killian required her to release all her patient records whom she gave any COVID 19 related care to and that included anyone who she gave exemptions to for masks or for the COVID-19 vaccines or who she may have an issue mask assumptions. So those patients were concerned because none of them had complained about the care they received for Dr. Killian, and they were concerned because what triggered the complaint against Dr. Killian was an actual investigation by the college registrar founded on information by anonymous and unidentified individuals. So the concerns for my clients was, how can complete strangers interfere with my relationship with my doctor, and in that process demand private information about my health care and my health choices that I don't want anyone to know without my consent. And if it is to be released, it should be released for my benefit. So that's why they decided to go to court because there was no way for them to bring their concerns to the college. This is an investigation by a regulatory body that falls under the auspices of the Minister of Health against a private doctor. And so the patient's sort of have no position visa vie this investigative process. So that's why it was necessary for them to seek judicial review of the college's conduct in the demand for their personal information in their medical records in the possession, but of Dr. Killian being demanded by a government agency,   Will Dove  06:34 right, and I want to get into some more details on that in a minute. But first, Paul, if you would, please introduce yourself and how you got involved in this.   Paul Slansky  06:42 I am a lawyer. I've been practicing for about 37 years. Primary primarily do criminal and constitutional and some regulatory. This fits within the regulatory and constitutional aspects of that. And I'm counseled for Dr. Killian, and I got involved because ominous husband, Rocco Galati was originally representing Dr. Killian, and he got quite ill, to the point where he was hospitalized, put in a medically induced coma and was close to death. And the college in their infinite mercy and wisdom agreed to a one month adjournment to get new counsel Rocco was representing Dr. Killian pro bono, and I'm representing Dr. Killian pro bono. And so one month to find another lawyer competent to deal with complicated constitutional regulatory, search and seizure related issues for free. And so which is quite a task, as well as to prepare written arguments for that in a month. Luckily, I just happened to call I think I called or maybe I talked to Amina, and found out that Rocco was in the physical health straits that he was in and basically said, Is there anything I can do to help and here I am. So since then, I've I've represented Dr. Killian, in a judicial review, as well as in a what's called a section 87 application, which is an application to try and enforce the college's search and seizure powers that went up on appeal. Then there was the actual section 87 application. That's also been determined since three separate court proceedings and three separate applications for leave to the Court of Appeal. So several court proceedings separate and apart from the the related court proceedings involving the patients for which Amina has been representing the patients and that have also been litigated and are also all being considered on the appeal. There, they're also being considered, along with another case that I'm also representing the other doctor, Dr. Kiska, and the Court of Appeal has agreed and the college has agreed that all of these should be considered together because they are related issues. So that's, in a nutshell who I am what I'm doing on this case.   Will Dove  09:33 Alright. Thank you, Raj. And I want to get back to you to clarify something that you and I were discussing prior to the interview, and that is the circumstances under which a doctor or a physician would open up the patient records for the college. And please explain that and how this case differs from that.   Rochagné Kilian  09:52 Thank you for that question. Well, I think what people need to understand is the the idea of what the college is there for is as protection for patients if a patient sees a physician, and there's a complaint that the patient is not happy with the service or the treatment that he received, or he should receive from that physician, they have the ability to approach the college and file a complaint. That complaint is usually assessed by the college and then be informed that there has been a complaint race. And then there's a, they can start working together to kind of sort this out. In my case, there was no physician or no patient that complaint. The second option that sometimes does happen is that there's another physician, that is in the circle of care of this certain of a specific position that seems to think that there's no standard of care or there was in danger of the health of a patient, that physician can reach out to the college to say, I've got some concerns about this patient, I want to raise a complaint. And we look into this. None of that wasn't my case, either. So no patient complaint, no physician complaint that started this. And the college still went ahead and approved the registered proof the the investigation, handed it over to the independent, organizer organization that does the investigation without any of the above.   Will Dove  11:17 But now I have to ask this question. Just to clarify everything you've just said. In this particular case, there was really no complaint, there was an employer who sent an exemption that you provided to one of your patients to the college. The patient did not complain. All right, so what are they investigating? There's no complaint.   Rochagné Kilian  11:43 Maybe as Paul that but the that's a good question.   Will Dove  11:46 All right. Well, let's do that. All I'm gonna I will get back to you in just a minute. But Paul, can you answer that question?   Paul Slansky  11:52 Well, the college Well, basically, the the committee, the ICRC investigations, reports and plates, I think committee can authorize an investigation based on either complaints or requests of the Registrar. And sometimes the request of the registrar is, is based on complaints. But it's not directly a complaint based application here. It was based upon the request of the registrar that was animated by these third party complaints. And they were allowed to under the procedural code to act I'll just refer to as the code that applies under this legislation, they're allowed to proceed with a complaint in those circumstances. However, they in order to do so there has to be reasonable and probable grounds, which is a term of art, it's got a specific meaning in the law, that there has been either misconduct or incompetence by the doctor. And they're supposed to assess that and based upon evidence, and if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is either misconduct or incompetence, then the this committee, the ICRC can authorize the college to investigate. And this is what they claimed to have done. They claimed to have found that there was a reasonable and probable grounds and have authorized this investigation. We are disputing that the there are reasonable and probable grounds, and absent reasonable and probable grounds, the investigation isn't valid, but more importantly, the search and seizure demands to obtain the patient records is unlawful and unconstitutional. And this is what's at the nub of these various applications.   Will Dove  13:48 All right, thank you. I'll get back to you more on that. I'm gonna thank you for your patience. The question I want to ask you, is all of this snowballed into the CPSO? Going back to Dr. Killian, and ordering her to hand over patient records, for every patient for whom she had provided any kind of COVID related care, is this correct? Correct. And so as you were explaining earlier, these patients have no recourse to go to the college and say, Well, no, I don't want my records accessed. And so I'm assuming what's happened now is you're representing these people. And I don't know of a class action to do the right word. But you're representing these people to protect their privacy, their right to medical privacy from the college's interference, and they have made it very clear, they don't want the college looking at their records. It's not correct.   Amina Sherazee  14:40 That's correct. And they did this in two ways. One, they thought to have the actions of the college and the and, and in the scope of the investigation reviewed by a court. So what they basically said is, we don't we don't agree that the college has this kind of extraordinary power. We think that when there is justification for an infringement of privacy, in order to fulfill a greater objective, which is the protection of patients and for the public good, then they're there, then they do have this power, but that power is triggered when the legislative requirements are met. And the legislation which the CPS though is bound by is, as Paul mentioned, the Health Professions procedural code. So we're going to call that the code and the Regulated Health Professions Act. And both of those legislations stipulate that a registrar can initiate a complaint, if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that that physician has engaged in misconduct or is incompetent. And usually that evidence is some sort of harm that's been caused to the patient, some sort of injury that the patient may have suffered, that perhaps the patient is not aware of, but maybe another doctor in their circle of care is aware of, or perhaps someone who is close enough to know that injury, but not based on speculation. What we really have here is eight sources of complaints against Dr. Killian, basically, suspecting that somehow, when an individual obtained an exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine, that they were somehow harmed or injured by the provision of that exemption. So that presumption is really what is the basis of the registrar's complaint. And what the patients are saying is the law doesn't allow for that. The law only allows for when you have reasonable grounds. And here's why. Because privacy is a very important interest, it's protected by section seven of the charter, it's protected by Section Eight of the charter. Charter rights are not just something that we frivolously, you know, disregard when we, when it's inconvenient for us. And so for the patient, it's really important on principle, to be able to have a court review this dispute between the patients and the registrar to be able to stay, you may think you have this extraordinary power to get whatever you want, whenever you want. But we don't think so we think you need our consent, and absent any evidence of harm or injury to us, you need to get our consent. And in the alternative, if you are unable to get our consent, you should engage in something that is minimally impairing our right to privacy. So an alternative argument for my patients has been, if you want to know what Dr. Killians assessment was, go ahead, get her clinical notes. But why do you need my personal information? Why do you need to know my date of birth or my gender or my sexual preference or my race or where I live or what my phone number is or how many children I have, like, that's personal data that's completely irrelevant to your investigation on whether or not Dr. Killing did a good job or whether she was competent or whether she needed in any kind of misconduct. So it's a very reasonable position. But unfortunately, both of the Divisional Court and at the Superior Court, the courts have said, we don't want to hear it. We don't want to know what you even have to say. And so in legal terms, what that's called is standing. So the the Divisional Court, a panel of three judges denied the patient standing. And they basically said you have no private interest, you have no personal interest. So we don't even want to hear from you. And that's what's now on appeal that all referred to. Secondly, they tried to intervene on the college's production order at the Superior Court. So the college asked doctor coming in for the medical report. She said I have to get my patient's consent. If my patients don't consent, I can't give it to you. And then the college thought to get the records in the court through an injunction. So the patient's tried to intervene on that to say, you are about to grant or deny an injunction by the college or doctor Killians medical records. But in those medical records is our personal information. And the law says that I own my personal information, even though Dr. Killian is in possession of it, so I deserve to be heard. And can I weigh in on this deliberation and then you can come up with your decision whatever it is to grant or deny, but to not even hear from us and to do it under the pretext that patients don't have a personal interest in their own personal information just defies all this Supreme Court of Canada, Georgia jurisprudence that we know, on privacy on reasonable expectation of privacy on medical informed consent. And so that's why all these cases are now on appeal, because we deal with very important issues that potentially impact all Canadians. But the course just don't want to deal with it.   Will Dove  20:19 How many patients are you representing.   Amina Sherazee  20:23 So I'm representing 31 patients and their men and their women, and they're from all walks of life. I have evidence from one of them under the pseudonym of Jane Doe. And she is a nurse who has been a critical care nurse for a former critical care nurse who has been one for, you know, almost 20 years. And she said, My understanding as a health professional is that you always need patient consent, absent any greater public interest, which is evidence of harm or injury, and there is no harm or injury here, here, all you have is speculation, suspicion. And when you read the substance of the complaint against Dr. Killian, it's actually quite vitriolic and hateful, because they really are targeting what she thinks then her speech and the fact that, you know, individuals have made their medical choices based on a medical assessment, and they don't like that choice, it really just comes down to that is I don't think this person should have gotten an exemption because and they're not a doctor, they have no health care training. They're just people who are disgruntled about the choices that individuals have made. And so this is a very important case for everyone, because we will all be making personal individual choices that other people disagree with. And so does that become then the basis where the registrar just started investigating against their doctors? And then what is the domino effect of that? Will doctors then say, because I don't want a college complaint, I'm not gonna respect my patients choice. So there's so many issues here in this case, then, that's why it's so important that we get heard. And that's why it's so important Canadians know about this. So thanks for your call.   Will Dove  22:15 I have one more question for Amina, before I get back to the two of you. I'm gonna You said you, you're representing 31 patients, right? Where these 31 patients asked to participate in this suit? Or did they approach you, they approached me 31 People 31 patients individually came to you looking for representation to protect their medical privacy.   Amina Sherazee  22:38 Yes. And prior to this 31, there were many more who were interested in protecting their privacy. But because I had explained to them that, you know, when you are litigating, you have to sign a retainer, when you retain a lawyer, you have to sign a retainer, so many of them didn't even want to disclose the details there, their personal data, even to me that I was restricted in how many I could represent. So people are very concerned about the breach of privacy about the overreach of the government and intruding into the privacy of their personal health choices. And I'm reasonably and unjustifiably intruding into personal information that belongs to Canadians or individual.   Will Dove  23:31 Well, Dr. Killian, fairly simple question. All this started, because you provided exemptions to patients for COVID-19 injections, I presume you also may have provided them with prescriptions for ivermectin did any? Now, we've already established there have been no complaints against you from patients to the college. Did any of those patients at any point in time come back to you saying that they have suffered any kind of harm from your treatment or exemption?   Rochagné Kilian  24:01 No will in fact, just the opposite. I was at an event this past weekend and I happen to meet one of the patients there. I didn't. I didn't follow up with all of them. Obviously, it was longitudinal care, which means it's one or two pair sessions. It's I'm not their family physician, but I made one of these patients. And they just personally thanked me and said this was their exact words, that I have no idea how many people I assisted during that period. So that was good to hear to kind of hear again, because it has been a tough road. But what I do think people need to understand is it's as Amina said this, it's got so many layers to it. Yes, the privacy, the confidentiality, the overreach all of this or what it basically means is that the college was able to set up a guideline on something period of a declared pandemic, not stent, it wasn't procedurals it wasn't in the code. There was no training or anything. It was literally just a guideline on who can read seat when exemption, because that's at the end of the day, the biggest thing they asked for all of these other things, but it comes down to the vaccine exemption, that's the one that they claim would have harmed patients. If somebody received an exemption, that would make them go into an area that they would be exposed to, because they didn't get the vaccine, they would be at greater harm, harm of developing COVID and dying from COVID, which, obviously, we know that's not the case, you are not protected from getting COVID, even if you had the shots, and you're not protected from passing it along, if you did get the shot. So there's no, there's no correlation with that allegation. But what people need to realize is, the relationship between a physician and their patient is such a complex relationship already, there is so much that goes into making decisions together. And that is what a proper physician is supposed to be. You get the information from a from a, from a patient, you discuss the risk all of my patients, we had a discussion on the risks versus benefit. That's what it came down to, what is the risk of you receiving a experimental biologic versus you getting a exemption from me and how you use that, what is which is the risk higher or is the benefit higher, and then they made that decision. And it was my duty to provide them with the options that I provided them with either exemptions or prescriptions. And in that case, that fact that the college has been able to temporarily suspend my license in the process, or even just start the investigation proved that they went after physicians that didn't follow guidelines, which is such an important distinction that we have to make, that any physician that actually stepped up in their duty to say, it's my duty and my standard of care, I don't care about the rest, my standard of care is actually higher than what you are maintained, we need to realize this. Physicians that stepped into this line, like we kept on track, we never wavered from our care. It was actually the colleges and the ones that that didn't follow per standard of care, that's a case we are just going to provide something to you without the proper data. Because most of the time, the discussion with my patients was, if we don't have enough information, there is no such thing as informed consent, then it is better to wait and we reassess in the future. So no, there has been nobody contacting me saying that this decision they made during that period brought them harm. And that's just the opposite. And it's as Amina said, as well, we always need to realize the decisions and the decisions we make today have consequences for the future. And the consequences of this is that the level of trust between physicians and patients has been so low. And it's absolutely be even further days kind of depleted because of this process. Because why would a physician trust it? Why would a patient trust a physician at this moment? If there's no protection between a physician and the regulatory body? And that's basically what's been proven in the last few years.   Will Dove  28:07 I just before I get back to Paul, one last question, Dr. Killian, and I believe I know the answer, but I'd like you to confirm it. To my knowledge. The majority of the people who sit on the board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario are not themselves doctors. Is this correct?   Rochagné Kilian  28:26 I don't know if Paul actually knows that answer. I don't know if all of them are physicians, but I do know the person that was appointed as my investigator was a nurse. So yes, and healthcare, but not to create a comparison, but the training is definitely not the same for you to be qualified as a physician, compared to you being qualified as a nurse. So the nurse was appointed to look into this investigation, not another physician.   Will Dove  28:54 Okay, so somewhat akin to a mechanic being asked to investigate an engineer. Yes, possibly. Yeah. Well, thank you for your patience. So we've established a number of very important things. First of all, the original complaint not come from a patient. Second, you've talked about the idea of misconduct, and incompetence, which leads to harm, which is typically the reason that a doctor would be investigated, but we have already determined that there have been no complaints of harm, no claims of harm, not so much as a comment to Dr. Killian, that any harm has resulted from her treatments. And so as Dr. Killian said, Let's be blunt here. This is a witch hunt. Going after a doctor. And Dr. Killian, as my viewers know, is hardly the only doctor I've interviewed who has been persecuted in this manner. And he doctor who refused to participate in the COVID narrative in favor of providing their patients with actual care that was in their interest. And so now I'm going to ask you more of a legal question. Now that'll be determined that what is the official stance of the College in terms of their accusation against Dr. Killian, and what is your defense to it?   Paul Slansky  30:07 Well, there's not really an accusation, per se yet. The there's a we're at the investigative stage, and they want to get through and past the investigative stage. Once your the investigation is complete, they then apply. I believe it's under Section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act for authorization to proceed with a disciplinary hearing. And at that point, there's a specific allegation. So right now, what there is, are allegations in the in the nature of reasonable and probable grounds alleged to warrant an investigation. So it's a preliminary kind of allegation, and the allegation, it does not involve ivermectin or any other drug, although the demands for information do it's it's basically to two bases. The one is the issuance of vaccine exemptions, and to her alleged, inappropriate expressions. And in that sense, it's similar to Jordan Peterson case, that's, that's been dealt with. And as I had some publicity where they were going after m, in respect of expressions, those are the only two allegations that they are then allowed to, to demand documents. To the extent that there are such reasonable and probable grounds, not beyond that, but they have demanded documents beyond that they've demanded documents in respect of all forms of COVID treatment, which is on the face of it unlawful and unconstitutional, as is clear from the court of appeal decision in a case called says aren't. And the both the college and the courts have ignored that. And they've also ignored the fact that there are not reasonable and probable grounds for several reasons, one of which Ahmed is already referenced that this is basically speculation. Not only is it speculation based on harm, but it's speculate. And, you know, my ominous said, Well, these aren't doctors, they're not medical professionals that can make that assessment. But more fundamentally, these are people who are third parties, they don't know anything about the medical circumstances of the patients. And that's something that is only known to the patient and to Dr. Killian, so how can some third party stranger who's like an employee or who sees an exemption so while I don't agree with this, they assume this exemption, they know nothing about the medical circumstances of the individual. They don't know nothing about whether and to what extent Dr. Killeen was applying for medical judgment. And it makes assumptions that there are reasonable probable grounds to believe that this has been done inappropriately. And again, this goes back as well to part of what Dr. Killian has said. Anyways, the one point is about the reasonable and probable grounds and and the speculation and the lack of medical information. The the other point, and this is where I was I was what I was thinking about before, it's based upon policies, not policies, even of the government or policies of the college, but policies of private medical organizations and associations. That's not the way that you you define what is misconduct or what is it an offence or what is improper actions by a doctor, you don't base that on some policy. And the again, there are problems with this specific policies in this particular case. So the basically the policy regarding vaccine exemptions is that you have to have a vaccine exemption and only if you have one and have an adverse reaction to it, unless you have a known allergy to a particular ingredient and the ingredients are even well known such that you could know whether you have an allergy. So basically you have to have a vaccine and then if you have an adverse reaction, then you can get an exemption assuming you survive. The first inoculation. This is this is the policy. And it's again, government is not entitled to set standards based upon policy period, let alone policies of private organizations. They have to be clearly set out. This is So so that doctors know what to do with what to do what not to do. And it's improper delegation to private organizations of government standards of medical standards. It's just not appropriate. In addition, for because they're seeking to to investigate Dr. Killian in respect of her expression, there are also issues as to whether that's something that they even have jurisdiction, do legislative jurisdiction and jurisdiction visa vie the freedom of expression under the charter. And then on top of that, they have a there's a whole bunch of search and seizure issues. And they claim to have a power to basically do whatever they want, which just is not true. But unfortunately, neither the college the ICRC are the courts have dealt with any of those issues properly. There, there are limits to government search and seizure, which the Court of Appeal in that same Susanne case that I made reference to before acknowledge they upheld the constitutionality of these search provisions, but only based on certain protections, which protections are being ignored in this case. So in addition to that they're overreaching in terms of the scope of the what they're searching for I already adverted to that, and then they're they're overreaching otherwise, in terms of the their purported powers, they claim that because there was reference to a duty to cooperate of doctors, that they can demand anything they want. And the doctor has to do it as part of their duty to cooperate. So if the college said, you know, up, up and down in one leg, their duty to cooperate would say, we have to do it, or you're going to be, you know, have your license suspended. I mean, and that's a little extreme, but but the point is that it's it's completely unknown what the duty of cooperate would be, how far it goes. And that is problematic because it's it's legislative overreach unconstitutionally vague. And, and, and overly broad. And so but yet, they're, they're claiming that. And again, the courts are saying, well, we're not going to deal with that. And they're, they're saying, basically, the college can do whatever it wants.   Will Dove  37:32 Right. So let me let me sum up, please, and please, Paul, correct me if I get this wrong, because I'm not a lawyer. At this point in time, there is actually no real official accusation against Dr. Killian by the college other than a suspicion that there may have been misconduct based upon her failure to follow their directives. Now, as Michael Alexander, the lawyer for Paltrow, Z, or mark throws a story, as said to me, directives are not laws. And so she hasn't broken any laws, either. Nor is a physician required to follow a directive. According to my understanding, it's just a recommendation from the college is all it is, and the physician may or may not follow it, on their their discretion, for the best treatment for their patient. So what this leaves me with is the inescapable conclusion that with the suspension of her license for the past two years now. They're not just using this as a means of persecuting the many doctors, good doctors who have stood up for their patients in the face of this COVID narrative. But they're also using this as a lever to get their foot in the door to access anybody's patient record anytime they want to. Does that sound about correct to you?   Paul Slansky  38:58 Yes. And they're doing so with a completely contrary to the Constitution. And based upon on on mischaracterizations of the law. What the college has argued, is that there are patients have no reasonable expectation of privacy. And that's the foundational protection under Section Eight of the Charter, the server right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, is is what is protected as the reasonable expectation of privacy. And if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you don't have any search rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. So they're saying that that patients don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. visa vie the college. That is a concept unknown to law. There's no such thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy. visa vie the college either you have a reasonable expectation of privacy or you don't and what that means when they when the courts have said so far that the patients have no reasonable expectation of privacy is the courts are basically saying that the assumption by every Canadian that as a patient, you have privacy interests in relation to your medical information and records has been thrown out. There is no longer according to these courts, any privacy protections, as a matter of constitutional law, it's gone near the courts, if the courts were really thinking they would realize, well, if someone wanted to access and publish the private records of one of the judges, they couldn't do anything about it, the judge couldn't do anything about it, because they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, that means they have no rights under Section Eight of the charter anymore. It's absurd. And yet, that this is what they base their conclusions, that the patients don't have any standing on this application. And what they've also said, visa vie, Dr. Killian, in respect of her challenges, to the searches and seizure demands that are based upon patient privacy expectations. Right, you're right, in terms of the policy issue, and that's one of the things we specifically argued that these are just recommendations, and that the doctor can't govern themselves based upon a recommendation. They have to there has to be legal requirements, legal standards set. And again, there's case law for the Supreme Court of Canada, out the wazoo showing that that's what's required. And again, the courts have ignored it repeatedly.   Will Dove  41:51 wrenching back to you with a question that I think a lot of lawyers don't like to answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Because it requires you to speculate. We've determined that there's no complaints, solid complaints whatsoever, I guess, Dr. Kelly, there's no evidence of harm. And yet they're pushing to get access to patient records, when it can't be shown that any reason for this any medical reason, any reason to protect them, or to uncover some sort of wrongdoing, because there is no evidence of harm whatsoever. We've determined through my discussions with Dr. Killian and with Paul, that they're using this as a lever to get their foot in the door to be able to access patient records anytime they want to for any reason they want to. So the speculative question I'm going to ask, Why do you think they're doing that? Why are they pushing so hard to essentially remove our citizens, right to medical privacy?   Amina Sherazee  42:52 I can say that there is an elephant in the room. And that elephant in the room is the questioning, acceptance, that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, and everyone should have one. And if you didn't, then there must have been something quite extraordinary about you. And any doctor who that is that there's something quite extraordinary needs to be probed. And it's okay. So that elephant in the room, it has never been dealt with. In this case, because we didn't even get a chance to open our books to get into the evidence. We were shut out right from the get go at the door. We weren't even allowed a foot into the door. So the evidence we had was to say is CPS, though call is the are outside the scope of their legislative authority. They're now of going into the constitutional territory where they're starting to dictate compulsory medical treatment. And they're doing that through the doctor. And the court didn't understand that nuanced argument. All they understood was that well, the college is not forcing anyone to get inoculated and there is no horse that inoculation in this country. And there is no forest, you know, vaccination, so therefore, these people are full of it. So we don't even want to hear from them. So that's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, and nobody's given an opportunity to talk about, but what the patient's wanted to be able to do is to say, These policies are problematic if you start circumscribing that doctor patient relationship surreptitiously through these policies, then you're going to undermine the whole idea of informed consent and medical choice and medical freedom and what goes with it, which is the trust between the doctor and the patient that is so necessary. And that trust is built on privacy, knowing that everything I share with my doctor is sacrosanct and protected much like the solicitor client, much like the priest and the confession are. And so we, we wanted to be able to talk about that, and we didn't, and that I don't know if we'll ever have a chance, but we're hoping that the Court of Appeal will turn it around, and we will. The second thing is upholding the rule of law. If the court goes back to, you know, first principles on the definition of reasonable expectation of privacy, as it's been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and rock, and Cole knows this better than I do, but the Marrakech case and our vs. Coal, and there's a number of other civil as well as criminal cases that talk about any information that reveals on any personal or biological information about an individual is likely to attach a reasonable expectation of privacy. And there's a whole test that must be done, you know, is that subjectively reasonable is that objectively reasonable and almost always health information, and personal information that goes to your biological core that identifies who you are, is both reasonably and objectively considered to meet the threshold for reasonable expectation of privacy. And that's all the patients had to do in order to be able to get that foot in the door to be able to say, we will be present during the arguments and deliberation, and you're going to hear our voice. And you're going to hear why is why is it that Dr. Killian is not required to release this information? And to do so without our consent, like she needs our consent in order to release information? Anytime the state asks for any personal information in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, there needs to be consent, absent of clear and pressing, you know, substantial objective. So here we have the college claiming that the objective is public health and safety, that it's dangerous to let Dr. Killian, you know, continue to give exemptions. But we don't actually challenge the premise of that submission, we don't actually challenge is it really dangerous for people to not get the COVID 19 vaccine when we know that it does not stop transmission or infection. So it's all premised on this idea that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, that every doctor should have been persuading their hesitant patients to get it, not necessarily engaging in the risk benefit analysis, not waiting for the data to come out and denying exemptions to people, which basically means that people would not have had the right to continue working, or the ability to put food on their table for their kids to be able to continue their education because we know that the mandates were short of being compulsory, the mandate, restricted and destroyed a lot of people's lives. So my prediction is that if the case law is followed, then the Ontario Court of Appeal will realize that patients ought to have been present during an the section 87 application compelling Dr. Killian to produce records, and they should have also had standing to judicially review the administrative action of the college. That's what I think will happen.   Will Dove  48:51 Ladies all I'm going to float my own theory, I'm gonna want your comments on it. Because we've established some very important things in this interview. One, Doctor killing has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, just the opposite. She's cared for her patients. And she's being persecuted for that. They are using this case as an excuse to try to normalize the idea that the college should be able to access patient records anytime they want to for any reason they want to. We've had this program of shoving these toxic shots into people for the last two and a half years now with severe consequences. We've established through our government's actions, that the only way as Paul was saying that you can get an exemption is if you get a shot and something really bad happens to you. Now, let's add to that the fact that next year, the amendments to the International Health Regulations which our country agreed two years ago, will come into play, which will give the WH o the authority to dictate health policy to every member country. Now we've already seen what happens With this kind of structure, because for the last two and a half years, three years now, we've had public health officers appointed not even elected officials appointed officials, many of whom have almost no medical training. Oh, sure, they're doctors. But let's talk about Deena Hinshaw in Alberta who got fired. Fortunately, a while back, her entire medical experience was a two year internship in family medicine at the University of Edmonton. And yet, these people are making medical decisions for every single person in their province, people who are not their patients, people with whom they do not have a relationship, people whom they have not examined. And so what I see coming from this is this is the foot in the door, you have access to all of our medical records so that when these amendments to the international health regulations come in, and the next pandemic comes along, they will know who has been injected or who has not. And they will be able to use that information against us. Amina, I'd like to start with you, what do you think of that theory? Am I crazy? Or does it sound to make sense?   Amina Sherazee  51:10 Um, well, the Supreme Court is pretty clear that every individual has a right to medical choice. And to that includes to refuse medical treatment, even to the point of putting their own life at risk. And they've repeatedly upheld that. Right. So insofar as the WHO charter would infringe that, yes, that is a very significant charter breach. And, of course, the right to privacy is a cornerstone of our Constitution, as well as our free and democratic society. And if the courts are going to allow the college to get carp launch, and special exemption from the requirement, follow the rule of law to ensure that privacy is breached as little as possible, it is lawfully justifiable, and it is protected as much as possible, then, then that cornerstone of our free and democratic society is also under threat. So that's very significant, I think. And I that's why I think this case is so important, because it touches upon all those things that are so important for sovereign individuals to be free from state interference, which is, you know, your right to privacy, my body, my choice, no release of my personal information, my biological core information without my consent, absent legal justification. So the court in the in the Killian decision and an another companion case called Dr. Cusco decision, they, the courts have basically confounded the right to privacy with and the right of control over information with the duty of confidentiality at the college. And this is very important, because under Section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, the college investigators are under a duty to keep everything that they obtained through an investigation confidential. And so the court says that, ah, you see, there you go, because they have that duty, there will never be a case where it's breached. And that must mean, therefore, that the college is supposed to have this extraordinary power. Well, those are both presumptions Those are both conclusions that the court has jumped to because there is no case law where patients have asserted privacy against college. And this is the first opportunity. And secondly, patients always own the information in their medical record. The doctor may be duty bound to release medical records, but the but they still ownership follows regardless of who possesses it. And the Supreme Court is clear on that too. That just because, you know, someone else controls physically the information that somehow the information of the individual was lost. That is, you know, contrary to what the Supreme Court of Canada has already sent. So, both the right to privacy and the right to informed medical truth and consent is under threat if the WHO YOU No constitution is implemented in the manner that you're proposing.   Will Dove  55:05 Thank you, all your opinion.   Paul Slansky  55:08 Well, leaving aside the who, sort of international sort of invasion of Canadian sovereignty, which again, is permissible, Canada can give up its sovereignty to international organizations and does from time to time, but questionable whether how appropriate that is with respect to something as local and fundamental as health. But again, I'm not gonna get into the debate about that. But to the extent you're saying, you know, that, that this would allow this, together with the approach of the college would allow for the college to get whatever they want from it in terms of documents and information from any patient at any time. Technically, that's not what's happening. But in reality, it is. Let me explain. Technically, before there can be any demand for information from a patient there has to be a process whereby the college through the IICRC, that committee determines that there are in fact, reasonable and probable grounds to believe there is misconduct or incompetence based upon evidence. And then further, further protection, is that what the ICRC has found reasonable and probable grounds on as to be described and any search as to be limited to what RPG or reasonable and probable grounds has been found? So technically, these are limits. And in fact, these are limits that have been imposed by the section eight of the charter, as have been, as was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal, or as was stated by the Court of Appeal in this says on case I made reference to before, and these are restrictions that this Court of Appeal has said make the search process constitutionally valid and lawful. The problem is that these restrictions are being ignored by the college being ignored by the ICRC and being ignored by the courts. So far. RPG it means something it requires. Reasonable probable grounds exist, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, when, at the point where credit, quote, credibly based probability replaces suspicion, in other words, suspicion or speculation is not sufficient. And here where you can have complaints by third parties who are uninformed about the medical circumstances, and not part of the the doctor patient relationship, and is our involves utter speculation. That's not reasonable and probable grounds. So this requirement for constitutional validity of the search process imposed by the Court of Appeal is not being honored and abrupt by the college, by the ICRC and or by the courts. And it's not capable of enforcement. If the doctor says no, I'm not going to follow this because this is unlawful. The courts so far in Dr. Killians. Case have said, well, it's premature for us to deal with that. And as they have said, that you have to comply, even though you're disputing it, you have to comply with an unlawful demand. They're saying, which is a slap in the face to the rule of law. This is what the courts have said so far, which is part of why we're seeking leave to the Court of Appeal, say basically enforce your own decision and force the Sussan decision, don't let the college and the lower courts get away with this abdication of the rule of law and undermining of the Constitution. The other protection about needing to describe what was reasonable probable grounds were found as a means of restricting the search is again being completely ignored by the college, the ICRC and the courts. Again, here, what was authorized was merely vaccine exemptions, visa vie, Dr. Killian, and yet they've asked for ivermectin records, other medical treatment records anything in relation to COVID. That that's clearly impermissible. And yet, not only is the college doing it, but the courts are saying it's premature, we're not going to get into it. We can't deal with individual rights and these applications, you must comply, even if it's um, it's potentially or arguably unconstitutional. Again, they can't do that. So the protections as exist as a matter of law, but the way the courts are dealing with it is too weak. ignore the law, ignore the Constitution and and undermine it, at the end sacrifice the privacy interests of the doctor and the privacy interests of the patients. So it's a matter of law, they don't have the right to do whatever they want, but the way the law is being applied so far, they can effectively are being allowed to do whatever they want.   Will Dove  1:00:22 All right, Dr. Killian, your theories on why they are pushing so hard to have you hand over patient records, when there's been no complaints against you?   Rochagné Kilian  1:00:32 Well, I think I want to summarize it for myself, because there's a reason that I stepped into it. And it's not because I am a family physician or an ER physician, and I'm definitely not a lawyer. I'm married to one, and one that is actually very passionate about something that's called medical ethics. That is where our connection was. And I think that is the that is the basis of what this all comes down to, we can speculate about the W H O and the ihr amendments. Yes, we have no idea what the implications of that is going to be. But what we can say in this is not speculation anymore, is the reason that we are in this trouble in Canada at this moment when it comes to our health and especially the whole story regarding the exemptions and vaccines in general, is because medical ethics have been ignored for the last few years. And if we allow this to continue, it means that whatever the decision is at the AI ihr that's going to be pushed through can be implemented in Canada is if we don't uphold medical ethics, then we have nothing to stand on. And the reason I say that is medical ethics are there to protect patients first off, but also to protect physicians when there are certain things stepping in. From a culture point of view, from a social society point of view, things change, there's an internal compass that needs to be guided by and that's principles of medical ethics, which includes bodily autonomy, which means that any patient has the choice to either receive or deny any treatment. The second one is informed consent, which we've heard a lot about, you cannot make a decision if you're not properly informed on the risks and the benefits. But there's another one that comes in and that's informed refusal, which really does connect with bodily autonomy. And I think for me, it comes down to this, Amina discussed the elephant in the room. And that is the presumption that was made that the biologics were first off, not still experimental, but then safe and affected. When I assess my patients, I said, we are in trouble or ready by the fact that I need to do an assessment to see if you qualify for an exemption, we should never have even been put into that position as physicians. And I think for me, that's the bigger, bigger elephant as a physician, no patient should ever have required assessment for me to get an exemption because they should have been should have had that choice from the beginning. We were pulled into it by guidelines being put out there to say yes, you will qualify for an exemption or not. So basically, what it comes down to, if we don't see the value and really stand strong on medical ethics, this story is going to repeat itself and repeat itself. And the next time around, it might even not be as pretty as we survived during the last few years.   Will Dove  1:03:37 Thank you for that. Dr. Killian, because it introduces my last question for Paul and Amina. Both of you are representing your clients, pro bono. And I imagine that these cases must be taking up a great deal of your time. Simple question, why are you willing to do that? I'm gonna   Amina Sherazee  1:04:00 I'm under a legal obligation I've undertaken to do this. And I'm under an ethical obligation to see it through and my clients are very committed and very passionate and require that assistance. And I think it's important for the rule of law, especially on a case that has no precedent, and there is no case law that's on point. So I think it's an important public service to litigate this issue with, you know, proper counsel. And that's why I continue to act pro bono. But I know that there is also a real groundswell of Canadians who have been mobilized through these legal cases. And there is a group now called Private See as you're right, and they have a website, and I can give that to you so that you can inform your listeners and, and they can join. And I think it's been really interesting that people have become more involved, and, you know, issues of privacy and informed consent, and perhaps even you know, petitioning their members of Provincial Parliament with respect to how it's impacting their health care and their relationship with their doctors. So I don't think it's just an isolated case of these 31 patients. And Dr. Killian, I think the issues that it touches upon are, you know, a broader societal significance. And that's why I feel compelled to continue representing this group.   Will Dove  1:05:49 You're on, Paul.   Paul Slansky  1:05:52 Well, additionally, I got involved pro bono as a favor for Rocco was a friend of mine. With him, I used to practice closely, and I'm still on my good friend out and it was in difficult straits. I didn't know Dr. Killian, I didn't know about the case, I got involved initially for him. Since then, however, I have stayed on the case. And in fact, if if anything sort of expanded to my involvement in the case, because of my concerns about justice, and again, I do other pro bono living and litigation I've done several I'm doing several I always do pro bono work, where I feel that there is an injustice that's being perpetrated, either for an individual or for the system. And here, it's, it's for individuals, Dr. Killian, as well as the patients and for the system. There There is here a serious abuse of authority being perpetrated by by the medical establishment by the college, by the ICRC and by the courts. So far, again, we're hoping that the Court of Appeal will reverse that, that. But this, this abuse of authority is very concerning. In addition, it's undermining their approach to this issue is undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the rule of law. And I find such things offensive, and, and things it needs to be stood up to. And where I can I do.   Will Dove  1:07:38 Dr. Killian are like to give you the final word, you're the one who has suffered the most, or simply choosing to do what was right.   Rochagné Kilian  1:07:48 Mmm hmm. Well, I think and this is a question we hear a lot. Why did we stand up? Amina Paul, we're all I think everybody that stood up during this time has taken a risk. Absolutely. But I think we all can agree would never make a different decision. Because at the end of the day, this is a bigger picture situation, where if we don't stand up, no, what is what is the legacy leave for our children. And I think I mentioned the the documentary The last time I was here with you a couple of weeks back the Great Awakening, it comes down to taking away of private property. And first off our sovereign right to decide on what goes into our bodies is our right, secondary and enable us to protect our children, because they are our property as well until they move out of the house. So for me, it comes down to it probably wasn't much of a choice because I've got an internal compass and my my loyalty is to a higher entity, not a an association that I was licensed with. But at the end of the day, there's people that have lost so much more. But I want to spend my side. I mean, I wonder segue into Amina and Paul, yes, they are working pro bono. But I don't think people realize how much work goes into a case like this. It's not just one filing. It's in multiple filings and multiple filings. And they are actually not even just working pro bono. They are incurring costs of their own to carry this. So it means that they are carrying this load with us. And maybe that's the silver lining that people realize. There's always hope, and we can always stand up. Are we going to be successful on the boards? Who knows? But I don't think we we are definitely not going to stop trying.   Will Dove  1:09:35 All right. Rocha name, Amina Paul, I know that I speak on behalf of all of our viewers when I thank you sincerely for the sacrifices that you are making in the defense of our rights and freedoms. Thank you. Well, thank you